All vips should have access to the ingame server commands, and everybody can use the site upload.
Major Mapping Contest #4
- Thread starter YM
- Start date
- Status
Sel
Banned
- Feb 18, 2009
- 1,239
- 2,570
You do.
I guess I'm missing something 
Why not used the regular servers?
Why not used the regular servers?
Randdalf
aa
- Feb 14, 2008
- 1,051
- 931
That's just fact? Competitive TF2 is played 6v6, and on very very rare occasions in 9v9 highlander.
- Sep 28, 2009
- 3,075
- 2,778
What's your definition of competitive, though? Because in my mind, it can be played in 12v12.
You didn't ask me but here's my view:
Competitive play is when two teams fight each other. With the use of tactics and teamwork, and each team tries their best as a unit to score the highest.
But that's just the top layer of the meaning.
Things like Tournaments, leagues and other e-sport events set standards for how a competition in said game should work. Over the 3 years of TF2 all kinds of setups and class limits have been tried. But we keep coming back to 6v6.
It's now the standard, and people agree that when talking about competitive TF2, you talk about 6v6 matches.
You can definitely play with a competitive mindset in 12v12, but the amount of players makes it near impossible to achieve anything resembling proper teamwork, at best you get small groups of 2-3 players (medic+others) doing small assaults against control points, but it's all separate from the rest of their team. The skill of both individuals and their teamwork gets lowered to the level where it's more luck and spam, rather than timing and competence.
=======
Edit: Dont wanna double post, so I'm just gonna edit this.
I don't like the idea of contest maps being played in our pub servers (since those most definitely aren't comp.. alltalk is even on!). I would like to know if the admin crew has any plan setup for how testing of these maps will happen?
Some kind of schedule, a plan of some sort, anything.
Last edited:
Icarus
aa
- Sep 10, 2008
- 2,245
- 1,210
What ravidge said, Please.
Don't make the contest for a make-believe playerbase. There is no such thing as 12v12 competitive. If you're not mapping for pubs, and if you're not mapping for 6v6, you're just wasting everyone's time, and the contest will be a sham.
What really bothers me are those who actually put effort in to have it mapped for 6v6 would lose to 12v12-groomed maps.
Don't make the contest for a make-believe playerbase. There is no such thing as 12v12 competitive. If you're not mapping for pubs, and if you're not mapping for 6v6, you're just wasting everyone's time, and the contest will be a sham.
What really bothers me are those who actually put effort in to have it mapped for 6v6 would lose to 12v12-groomed maps.
Last edited:
- Dec 28, 2008
- 944
- 1,152
- Apr 19, 2009
- 4,460
- 1,722
Well lets see; 26 maps x 50-60 voters. So each map would need 5 tests to have everyone play it at least once. So thats 130+ tests to allow for proper reviews.
I am not swinging any way I am just stating the facts.
Or we could just to this:
3:06 PM - flame ♫: just dcut down the # of maps
3:06 PM - flame ♫: from 26 to 15 =]
3:06 PM - flame ♫: or 10 even
3:06 PM - flame ♫: easyyy
I am not swinging any way I am just stating the facts.
Or we could just to this:
3:06 PM - flame ♫: just dcut down the # of maps
3:06 PM - flame ♫: from 26 to 15 =]
3:06 PM - flame ♫: or 10 even
3:06 PM - flame ♫: easyyy
Last edited:
- Jan 6, 2008
- 2,289
- 1,372
I came in here to complain about this CASUAL play of COMPETITIVE CTF maps for the contest. I see I came to the right place.
Ravidge is right. There may not be an actual definition of what 'Competitive' is. But over the years, it's been taken as 6v6. 9v9 Highlander has just recently gotten some coverage, but because of all the people, we've learned that 6v6 is, in the end, the most 'competitive' way to play under these guidelines:
--Alltalk is off
--Teams coordinate their attacks
--There are class limits (no sentry farms, and other balance issues because of class count)
This casual play that is going on now is poisoning the player's opinion of the map. Badwater plays much different 6v6 than 12v12. The majority of maps do, and with these ctf maps being made with 6v6 in mind, these ctf maps play differently at 12v12. If you play Badwater 12v12 only, you may not like it at 6v6 because you're used to playing it with more people to kill or get killed by. If we continue to suggest to people to play these maps 12v12, it'll make people think of the maps that way, and that goes against what we wanted them to do.
What can we do? Well, we could maybe change the rcon password for a week or two and give it to trustworthy members so that they may host 6v6 games through tf2lobby, and password the 24-man servers once twelve people are in it. We could essentially have twenty four Europeans and Americans playing these competitively at a time (if my understanding that there are two US servers and two EU servers, one of each being 24 man, the other 12 man, is correct). And for a couple weeks of doing that, I'd think that would be plenty of time for people to get the maps down in a competitive opinion for them to judge things /properly/.
Edit: While typing that novel, I noticed the above two posts. Twenty six maps. I know straight off the top of my head a couple that just don't compare to some of the bigger ones. Why should we waste our time and play those and come up with a detailed score if they have no chance in hell to win? No offense to those that made them, you all did well, but I know you know that some other maps are better than yours.
I agree that we should, after a week or playing maps, have a knockout round. My idea is this: You vote for ten maps that you think should stay, with a couple sentences stating the reasons why they should stay. But then also write a few sentences explaining why the ones you didn't pick shouldn't make it. This way we know people have played every map at least once. The judges DO NOT participate in this knockout round. All they do is look at everyone's lists and, if for some reason, think the person wrote something that they pulled out of their ass (like they mention something that doesn't apply to the map), they can cancel their choices since they don't believe they took part in trying all the maps properly. Each map is given a point if they're chosen by somebody, and if, after all points are added up, there is a tie for tenth place, there may be up to fifteen maps that make it through the knockout round. No ranking things in order either, just a list of maps you think should make it through to the more detailed judging process and why, and those that shouldn't and why.
Once teen to fifteen maps make it through, we do what the OP says with the 1-7 and all that jazz.
Ravidge is right. There may not be an actual definition of what 'Competitive' is. But over the years, it's been taken as 6v6. 9v9 Highlander has just recently gotten some coverage, but because of all the people, we've learned that 6v6 is, in the end, the most 'competitive' way to play under these guidelines:
--Alltalk is off
--Teams coordinate their attacks
--There are class limits (no sentry farms, and other balance issues because of class count)
This casual play that is going on now is poisoning the player's opinion of the map. Badwater plays much different 6v6 than 12v12. The majority of maps do, and with these ctf maps being made with 6v6 in mind, these ctf maps play differently at 12v12. If you play Badwater 12v12 only, you may not like it at 6v6 because you're used to playing it with more people to kill or get killed by. If we continue to suggest to people to play these maps 12v12, it'll make people think of the maps that way, and that goes against what we wanted them to do.
What can we do? Well, we could maybe change the rcon password for a week or two and give it to trustworthy members so that they may host 6v6 games through tf2lobby, and password the 24-man servers once twelve people are in it. We could essentially have twenty four Europeans and Americans playing these competitively at a time (if my understanding that there are two US servers and two EU servers, one of each being 24 man, the other 12 man, is correct). And for a couple weeks of doing that, I'd think that would be plenty of time for people to get the maps down in a competitive opinion for them to judge things /properly/.
Edit: While typing that novel, I noticed the above two posts. Twenty six maps. I know straight off the top of my head a couple that just don't compare to some of the bigger ones. Why should we waste our time and play those and come up with a detailed score if they have no chance in hell to win? No offense to those that made them, you all did well, but I know you know that some other maps are better than yours.
I agree that we should, after a week or playing maps, have a knockout round. My idea is this: You vote for ten maps that you think should stay, with a couple sentences stating the reasons why they should stay. But then also write a few sentences explaining why the ones you didn't pick shouldn't make it. This way we know people have played every map at least once. The judges DO NOT participate in this knockout round. All they do is look at everyone's lists and, if for some reason, think the person wrote something that they pulled out of their ass (like they mention something that doesn't apply to the map), they can cancel their choices since they don't believe they took part in trying all the maps properly. Each map is given a point if they're chosen by somebody, and if, after all points are added up, there is a tie for tenth place, there may be up to fifteen maps that make it through the knockout round. No ranking things in order either, just a list of maps you think should make it through to the more detailed judging process and why, and those that shouldn't and why.
Once teen to fifteen maps make it through, we do what the OP says with the 1-7 and all that jazz.
Last edited:
You know, I find this kind of ironic...
We've had the contest organisers stating that comp play is a mindset and method of play, not about skill. "Anyone can play comp" they say. Pretty much everyone has being saying you don't need to be good to play comp (average competence with standing), yet we have the comp supporters contradicting the organisers and contest supporters. Which way around is it people... you can't have it both ways. Either comp is a method of play or it's strictly 6vs6 highly competent players.
Either this contest was undermined from the start from the lack of comp player support (there arn't nearly enough comp players to play test all the entries). Or some people are taking this way too seriously.
I understand what Icarus is saying, we need to try and not play so many "pub" games when it comes to the voting process; but most of the people here don't take playing TF2 seriously, so 90% of the authors and TF2 members are subject to undermining the entire contest results when ever they play the maps. But barring most of the TF2 members including the map authors from playing and voting isn't something people signed up for when they entered this contest.
By extreme views the only way to judge this contest in any legitemate capacity would be to set up a comp league featuring these maps. But i seriously doubt we'd have enough support. So we have to make do with what we have. Which is a pub server and 2 or 3 12 man servers.
Besides, we're still going through the weeks post testing for bugs so i think you can let a few 6+ team tests slide until the actual voting process happens.
We've had the contest organisers stating that comp play is a mindset and method of play, not about skill. "Anyone can play comp" they say. Pretty much everyone has being saying you don't need to be good to play comp (average competence with standing), yet we have the comp supporters contradicting the organisers and contest supporters. Which way around is it people... you can't have it both ways. Either comp is a method of play or it's strictly 6vs6 highly competent players.
Either this contest was undermined from the start from the lack of comp player support (there arn't nearly enough comp players to play test all the entries). Or some people are taking this way too seriously.
I understand what Icarus is saying, we need to try and not play so many "pub" games when it comes to the voting process; but most of the people here don't take playing TF2 seriously, so 90% of the authors and TF2 members are subject to undermining the entire contest results when ever they play the maps. But barring most of the TF2 members including the map authors from playing and voting isn't something people signed up for when they entered this contest.
By extreme views the only way to judge this contest in any legitemate capacity would be to set up a comp league featuring these maps. But i seriously doubt we'd have enough support. So we have to make do with what we have. Which is a pub server and 2 or 3 12 man servers.
Besides, we're still going through the weeks post testing for bugs so i think you can let a few 6+ team tests slide until the actual voting process happens.
Last edited:
- Dec 28, 2008
- 944
- 1,152
A discussion in chat that was had today.
20:59 - The Midget | Revising: casual play =/= testing
20:59 - The Midget | Revising: so stop comparing them
20:59 - Rikka: don't be naive. there are people on there will have their scores influenced by their current play time
21:00 - The Midget | Revising: so?
21:00 - The Midget | Revising: do you expect everybody in teh community to play every map 6v6?
21:00 - The Midget | Revising: do you seriously expect that to happen
21:00 - Icarus: yes
21:00 - Icarus: otherwise
21:00 - Icarus: you're just ruining the contest
21:00 - Icarus: unless the popular vote is small, or non-existant
21:00 - The Midget | Revising: it's hard enough gathering a 6v6 for any map
21:01 - Rikka: if you can't get that playtime in, don't vote. is it feasible? unforutnately no, but that's something we should have been prepared for the second they annouced the contest
21:01 - The Midget | Revising: just dont have a public vote
21:01 - The Midget | Revising: have 12 judges
21:01 - The Midget | Revising: get them to play 6v6
21:01 - The Midget | Revising: but you cant expect the only playtime to be done 6v6
21:01 - Icarus: "First component - Popular Vote"
21:01 - Icarus: popular vote is already planned
21:02 - The Midget | Revising: trash it then
21:02 - Icarus: I've been asking for that
21:02 - Icarus: but it's up to YM
21:03 - The Midget | Revising: but you cannot expect everybody to enter into 6v6 testing
21:03 - Icarus: no, I dont
21:03 - Icarus: but voting it based on the wrong game mode is just as bad, if not worse
21:03 - The Midget | Revising: hell
21:04 - Rikka: we don't. those who don't shouldn't vote. and if there's a public vote there's no way to stop then
21:04 - Muffin Man: as far as I know there is nothing to specify that this contest is meant for 6v6 play
21:05 - Muffin Man: a map can also have a competitive design in that it promotes strategic play
21:05 - Icarus: drp: its a comp ctf contest. so the maps will be judged on how well they play in 6v6 environment.
21:05 - The Midget | Revising: yeah
21:05 - The Political Gamer: ugh we would need over 130 tests to for everyone to give good reviews :/
21:05 - The Midget | Revising: I saw
21:05 - Muffin Man: well, that's what I thought until drp said that anyway
21:05 - Rikka: competitive ctf. if that's not for 6v6, there's no point in the specification
21:05 - Muffin Man: afaik that's the first time a mod has said "this is a 6v6 contest"
21:05 - The Midget | Revising: we're not saying DONT test 6v6
21:05 - Rikka: no its not
21:06 - Icarus: no such thing as 12v12 compettive
21:06 - Icarus: nobody will pay the map
21:06 - The Political Gamer: ^
21:06 - Muffin Man: Muffin Man: a map can also have a competitive design in that it promotes strategic play
21:06 - flame ♫: just dcut down the # of maps
21:06 - Icarus: you're mapping for an invisible playerbase
21:06 - flame ♫: from 26 to 15 =]
21:06 - flame ♫: or 10 even
21:06 - flame ♫: easyyy
21:06 - The Political Gamer: I kinda agree with flame on this
21:06 - The Midget | Revising: @Rikka, @Icarus I get what you're saying and all. A lot of these maps have only been played with larger numbers as well. There has been a lack of 6v6 testing for the most part of this contest which means most of the thoughts are going to be skewed anyway
21:06 - Ravidge | ctf_Fusion: so I just played some on the US server, that was competitive as fuck guys. we almost had a medic
21:06 - Rikka: maps were designed based on the rules for 6v66
21:06 - Wilson "Sherlock" Wankhouse: 6v66?
21:06 - Rikka: hahahahah
21:06 - Wilson "Sherlock" Wankhouse: Isnt that bit unbalanced
21:07 - The Midget | Revising: nah
21:07 - The Midget | Revising: its 6 comp players v 66 pubbers
21:07 - The Political Gamer: lol
21:07 - Muffin Man: where in the rules does it say that it must be designed specifically for 6v6?
21:07 - Muffin Man: of course ignoring drp's later statement
21:07 - Icarus: "it's like cutting through butter!!"
21:07 - Icarus: what do you think competitive CTF means?
21:07 - Rikka: it doesn't say it has to. but it's cleary supposed to be designed for 6v6
21:07 - Icarus: there is no such thing as 12v12 competitivbe
21:08 - The Midget | Revising: I say a popular vote or something to cut the numbers down to 10 ish
21:08 - Muffin Man: I quote myself yet again
21:08 - Icarus: 9v9 highlanders arent very competitive. its more of a ruleset
21:08 - Muffin Man: Muffin Man:
Muffin Man: a map can also have a competitive design in that it promotes strategic play
21:08 - The Midget | Revising: like Flame suggests
21:08 - Rikka: and it would suck if we decide now "well most people weren't willing to go out of their way to get 6v6 testing, so fuck the people who actually did, we're taking out the competitive part of the contest"
21:08 - The Midget | Revising: but theres no way every map will get competetant 6v6 testing as it is now
21:08 - The Political Gamer: idk if assembly gets axed
21:08 - The Political Gamer: if that makes testing quicker
21:08 - Ravidge | ctf_Fusion: I've already stated what I think competitive means, on the forum
21:09 - The Midget | Revising: fuck it
21:09 - The Midget | Revising: give the maps to the a comp league and let them play on them all and decide the winner
21:09 - The Political Gamer: lol
21:09 - The Midget | Revising: I'm sure that would be the only real way to decide the winner, give it to the competetive community to decide
21:09 - Rikka: there would have been no point specifying it as a competiive contest if it wasn't for 6v6. its assumed you're going to make your map require some strategy and teamwork normally already
21:10 - StickZer0 | CTF_Mexico: comp ctf was never gonna work anyway
21:10 - StickZer0 | CTF_Mexico: lol
21:10 - The Midget | Revising: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
21:10 - Wilson "Sherlock" Wankhouse: ^^^^^^^^^^^^
21:11 - Void | ctf_wiretap_b1: ^
21:11 - The Political Gamer: We all know the comp part was bullshit
21:11 - Wilson "Sherlock" Wankhouse: Also stick
21:11 - The Political Gamer: left over from the 5CP contest
21:11 - 42| Randdalf: we all know it should have been 5cp
21:11 - Ravidge | ctf_Fusion: then why didnt people who didnt care about it pull out of the competition?
21:11 - The Political Gamer: THANKS ZPQ
21:11 - Icarus: because its a competition :/
21:11 - Icarus: MUST JOIN NAO
21:11 - Icarus: (btw, I did pull out)
21:12 - Icarus had the forsight
21:12 - The Political Gamer:
21:12 - Ravidge | ctf_Fusion: no point in submitting a map that doesnt even care about the basic nature of it
21:12 - Icarus: its jsut an insult to those who actually mapped for 6v6 properly
21:12 - The Midget `cBs: TF2Maps.net people shouldn't even test the map 6v6
21:12 - Icarus: shmitz, ravidge, etc
21:12 - The Midget `cBs: it should be given to a league to decide
21:13 - The Political Gamer: lets just cut it down to the 10 real comp maps
21:13 - The Political Gamer: and test those
21:13 - Void | ctf_wiretap_b1: :c
21:13 - Muffin Man: :| no
21:13 - Mott: Let's just not test
21:13 - Mott: And give the prizes to me
21:13 - The Political Gamer: ...
21:13 - Mott: That way no one wins!
21:13 - Mott: (except me)
21:13 - Void | ctf_wiretap_b1: all prizes to the hypnotoad
21:13 - The Midget `cBs: I doubt enough of us are competetant in 6v6 to test the maps properly
21:14 - The Political Gamer: ^
21:14 - flame ♫: i offered to get more judges a long time ago
21:14 - flame ♫: but people were like no stfu
21:14 - Mott: Judges ! = testers
21:14 - flame ♫: competitive testers
21:14 - flame ♫: who could judge
21:14 - flame ♫: *
21:14 - The Political Gamer: name?
21:14 - The Political Gamer: s*
21:14 - The Midget `cBs: that would be a great option
21:14 - flame ♫: idk
21:15 - The Midget `cBs: lets face it, this whole contest was a farce
21:15 - flame ♫: check my friends list. getting people to say "fun or not fun" is easy
21:15 - StickZer0 | CTF_Mexico: agreed
21:15 - flame ♫: most can tell just by loading it up
21:15 - Mott: Flame
21:15 - Mott: There's more than 'fun or not fun"
21:15 - flame ♫: not for prelims
21:15 - flame ♫: nobodys writing up shit for 26 maps
21:16 - Void | ctf_wiretap_b1: Booj wrote essays for each map of the PLR/CTF contest
21:16 - flame ♫: most of the judges hardly even play this game
21:16 - Icarus should paste this whole chat log to DRP or YM
21:16 - The Midget `cBs: do it Icarus
21:16 - Mott: So we can see how it was actually a good idea to not let Flamejudge?
21:16 - StickZer0 | CTF_Mexico: is flame judging?
21:16 - Void | ctf_wiretap_b1: hope not
21:16 - StickZer0 | CTF_Mexico: hooray, that's Mexico lost
21:17 - The Midget `cBs: I love how all this judging talk comes up now
21:17 - Icarus: flame actually knows what he's talking about
21:17 - The Midget `cBs: and none of it seemed to be present during teh contest
21:17 - Icarus: of course hes not a judge
21:17 - Mott: Hah
21:17 - Icarus:
21:17 - Mott: Good one
21:17 - Icarus: it came up lots
21:17 - Void | ctf_wiretap_b1: THIS MAP FUN THIS MAP WIN FLAME HAPPY
21:17 - Icarus: revidge did two massive posts on it
21:17 - flame ♫: what
21:17 - flame ♫: im a judge
21:17 - The Midget `cBs: where?
21:17 - supersandvich: you just havent experienced flame's SEXYNESS yet matt
21:17 - flame ♫: 8)
21:17 - Icarus: I even made a post on it
21:17 - The Political Gamer: lol
21:17 - Mott: Hahah
21:17 - flame ♫: no rly im judging
21:18 - Mott: Anyone Flame doesn't like's maps are fucked now
21:18 - Mott: I highly doubt flame can be unbiased
21:18 - flame ♫: ask youme if you dont believe me
21:18 - Muffin Man: well hopefully we have a lot of judges
21:18 - flame ♫: HOPEFULLY
21:18 - Void | ctf_wiretap_b1: wiretap is dead now if flames a judge
21:18 - supersandvich: matt that's why there are multiple judges
21:18 - Mott: Multiple judges or not
21:18 - The Political Gamer: Void most of the maps are now lol
21:18 - supersandvich: void didnt i tell you to move the spawn like a couple alphas ago
21:18 - Mott: One judge fucking with your scores basically puts you out
21:18 - StickZer0 | CTF_Mexico: Why can't we have more stupid judges that are easy to bribe?
21:18 - Muffin Man: would be cool if the public's votes only counted 0.5 for this contest
21:19 - Muffin Man: or 0.25
21:19 - StickZer0 | CTF_Mexico: i thought it did Muff?
21:19 - supersandvich: your assumption that flame will intentionally score people's maps low because he doesn't like them is silly
21:19 - The Midget `cBs: 0.2 public 0.4 judge vote 0.4 comp players votes
21:19 - StickZer0 | CTF_Mexico: wuuuttt
21:19 - Muffin Man: oh okay
21:19 - The Midget `cBs: would be good
21:19 - StickZer0 | CTF_Mexico: oh shit i'm screwed then XD
21:19 - Muffin Man: well no, that's not what I meant
21:19 - Muffin Man: meh, forget it
21:20 - Void | ctf_wiretap_b1: yeah wiretap has no chance anymore
Nerdboy disconnected.
21:20 - Icarus: just fyi, makign suggestions here isnt going ot go anywhere
21:20 - Icarus: you need to bring it up to YM
21:20 - The Political Gamer: Judging Categories Note: We will be hosting new Gamedays specifically for 6v6 play.
21:20 - Icarus: post on the forums
21:20 - The Political Gamer: HAH
21:20 - StickZer0 | CTF_Mexico: what TPG said
21:20 - Rikka: what happened in the last 10 minute?
21:21 - StickZer0 | CTF_Mexico: actually TPG
21:21 - The Political Gamer: if anything this contest is shown that we need mods that can get shit done
21:21 - StickZer0 | CTF_Mexico: Ravidge did set up Ravipugs
21:21 - The Political Gamer: >.>
21:21 - The Political Gamer: <.<
21:21 - StickZer0 | CTF_Mexico: and the Ravipugs were very useful
21:21 - The Political Gamer: yes but they only came about in the last month :/
21:21 - Ravidge | ctf_Fusion: except that only like 5 people used them for actual testing
21:21 - The Political Gamer: nothing a rav
21:21 - Icarus: people just have to put in minimal effort ot get it pug tested
21:21 - Icarus: but no
21:21 - The Political Gamer: on*
21:22 - Icarus: most of them jsut waited around. sat around for impromptus and gamedays
21:22 - flame ♫: rav should judge imo
21:22 - Littleedge: http://forums.tf2maps.net/showpost.php?p=159727&postcount=317
21:22 - flame ♫: but submit his scores last
21:22 - Littleedge: Have a novel!
21:22 - Void | ctf_wiretap_b1: he cant
21:22 - flame ♫: first*
21:22 - Void | ctf_wiretap_b1: he entered
21:22 - The Political Gamer: flame judges can't win
21:22 - Void | ctf_wiretap_b1: think man, think!
21:22 - Ravidge | ctf_Fusion: I'm a contender
21:22 - flame ♫: me and nineaxis
- Status